Standing Committee D

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Licensing Bill [Lords]

Schedule 1 - Provision of regulated entertainment

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in schedule 1, page 113, line 3, leave out paragraph 14 and insert—
'Educational and social establishments 
 14 The provision of entertainment is not regarded as regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act if it is undertaken on the premises of— 
 (a) an educational establishment for the purposes directly connected to the activities of the establishment; 
 (b) a prison for the purposes incidental to the activities of the prison; 
 (c) a hospital for the purposes incidental to the activities of the hospital; or 
 (d) a museum or public gallery for purposes incidental to the activities of the museum or public gallery.'.

Roger Gale: With this we may take Government amendment No. 5.

Malcolm Moss: Amendment No. 58 is a replica of an amendment that was proposed in the other place. I understand that the Government went some way to meeting its requirements. Paragraph 14 now acknowledges that entertainment in an educational establishment for purposes directly connected with that establishment's activities is not to be regarded as provision of regulated entertainment. If the concession has been allowed for educational establishments, we still query why it is not extended to prisons, hospitals and museums, where the entertainment is incidental to the establishment's activities.
 We are well aware that functions are put on in hospitals, and also now in prisons as a means of rehabilitating prisoners, who take part in operas, plays or musical activities. There can surely be no question of such activities causing disturbance or disorder in a prison, with all its rules and regulations. Knowing where prisons are situated, I do not believe that they would cause a noise problem either. I would not have thought that hospitals had huge facilities to hold large entertainment gatherings, and, again, I imagine that in most cases facilities for entertainment in museums and galleries are small, any activities that take place are small scale and related to fundraising. 
 We tabled the amendment to test again the Government's reasons for not allowing entertainment to take place in those establishments, as they have conceded that educational establishments will be all right. If they are all right, why are the others not all right? Again, there is inconsistency and a lack of logic in the Government's approach. We shall be interested to hear what the Minister says.

Roger Gale: Before we proceed, I remind the Committee that I said on Tuesday that I was prepared
 to permit a wide-ranging debate on the schedule because of the interrelated nature of the amendments and that on that basis I did not expect there to be a stand part debate on it. I mention that now, because if an hon. Member has anything to say, he must say it.

Kim Howells: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Gale. I shall bear it in mind.
 Amendment No. 5 relates to paragraph 14 in part 2 of the schedule. I am sure that the Committee has sympathy with those who proposed the exemption—I certainly do—and with the focus of their argument in another place, which was to ensure that our schools do not have to be burdened with the administrative requirements of the Bill and, more important, with the associated costs. However, I see problems with the scope of the exemption and with some points of principle. 
 I shall deal first with the scope. The amendment uses the expression ''educational establishment'' without offering a more detailed definition. The term ''educational institution'' is more commonly found in statute. It is used in the Bill and is defined in clause 17(3). It means 
''(a) a school, or an institution within the further or higher education sector, within the meaning of . . . the Education Act 1996 . . . or
(b) a college . . . school, hall or other institution of a university, in circumstances where the university receives financial support under section 65 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992''.
 That gives us a better understanding of what would be exempted by paragraph 14. It would not be simply school plays and concerts and similar activities. The exemption would encompass a range of entertainments, such as dances, raves, rock concerts and major festivals held by universities, colleges and places of further education for their students and others. It can also be argued that it covers student unions. 
 These days student unions run and control nightclubs that are serious and major businesses. Their premises give rise to as many anxieties about alcohol consumption, disorder, noise nuisance and drugs as any similar commercial venture in our town and city centres. Indeed, they often are in our town and city centres. In my constituency the university is very close to the centre. It would be reckless in the extreme to exempt such premises from the Bill. For that reason we cannot allow the exemption to stand.

Mark Field: Perhaps the Minister can go into some detail about the debate in the other place. As he will be aware, the third line of the paragraph refers to
''purposes directly connected to the activities of the establishment''.
 Although I understand the concern that student union events may be riotous and noisy, they would surely not, per se, fall within the amendment proposed in the other place.

Kim Howells: That is a fair point, which goes to the heart of the problem, because what goes on in a student union or at one of the other events that I have mentioned has an immediate impact.

Mark Field: The Hornsey college of art.

Kim Howells: God forbid! The hon. Gentleman refers to an educational establishment that I attended. The goings-on there would have been a problem if they had occurred in my street.

Mark Hoban: In this sitting we have seen a repeat of what has happened in previous sittings, when the Minister has used an extreme case to justify an amendment. He is applying the same principles for student union nightclubs to plays in schools put on for the benefit of parents or, say, local charities. The use of that extreme example undermines his argument. What is he trying to stop? Is there not a better way of doing it than by simply striking out the other place's amendment?

Kim Howells: That is a fair intervention. I shall try to explain why the amendment made in another place is wrong. School concerts, carol services and so on are not the entire amendment. The amendment uses an expression that encompasses universities and further and higher education colleges, where the events that I have described take place regularly. That is a problem.

Malcolm Moss: Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells: May I make a little progress and then I shall give way?
 As regards points of principle, entertainment is regulated under the Bill to achieve the licensing objectives, not least, as I have explained, public safety. The establishments that the other place's amendment would partially exempt host a number of occasions that the public can attend. Schools stage commercial concerts and plays. However, because events take place in schools, it does not mean that the public should not be protected or expect to be protected. 
 I remind the Committee that the reforms under the Bill are designed to establish a level playing field for charitable and community bodies with a light touch and an unbureaucratic system. To exclude some premises entirely from the provision, while including others, would not achieve that aim. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced her intention of placing schools and sixth form colleges on an equal footing with church halls, village halls and community venues by waiving the fees in relation to the provision of regulated entertainment. I now give way to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss)

Malcolm Moss: It was so long ago that I almost forgot the question that I wanted to ask the Minister. He used the term ''reckless in the extreme'', but as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said, the provision that deals with educational establishments clearly states:
''for the purposes directly connected to the activities of the establishment''.
 It does not refer to purposes that are incidental to an establishment. Is the Minister making the case that raves and nightclubs at universities are directly connected to the activities of such establishments?

Kim Howells: Yes, such activities are clearly connected to those establishments. They take place
 on the premises and the thrust of the Bill is about ensuring that public safety is protected and that the lives of residents who live close to the establishments are not made a misery. It is important that we recognise that. The main purpose of an establishment may be education, but that does not mitigate the misery caused to residents who live close to it as a result of events that take place regularly on the campus.

Andrew Turner: The Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire was absurd. It is like saying that a barn dance is connected directly to the activities of agriculture, because it takes place in a barn. A rave is not connected directly to the activities of an educational establishment because it takes place in such an establishment.

Kim Howells: That is a nice debating point, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is far more sensible than that. He will understand that at large further and higher education establishments big businesses are often involved in entertainment, which is a direct consequence of the existence of a university or college. To advance that argument about a farmer or the owner of a barn occasionally applying for a licence to mount a barn dance or concert trivialises matters. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has large educational institutions on the Isle of Wight. He will know that they can be a potent source of disorder and discomfiture for people who reside near them. We must bear that in mind, as well as those people who visit them occasionally and who may be subject to rowdy behaviour and danger.
 School concerts are licensable activities under existing legislation, although outside London a reduction in, or waiver of, a fee may be granted by the local authority if it considers that the entertainment is of an educational or like character. There is currently no exemption from the requirement for licensing. 
 Under the Bill, the teaching of music, including the performance of musical pieces in school by teachers and pupils for other teachers and pupils, is not a licensable activity.

Mark Hoban: Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells: I will in a moment. Such activities are private and the public are not admitted to them. They are not undertaken for a charge or with a view to profit and therefore do not qualify as regular entertainment on several fronts.
 School concerts or plays for teachers, pupils, parents, guests and invited friends are not licensable activities unless a charge is made that is intended to generate profit. If the charge were meant to do no more than cover the school's costs for the provision of the entertainment, no profit would be intended and, again, the qualifying conditions would not be met. If a school concert or a play of that kind is staged for those that I have just mentioned and they are invited to make a donation to the school, but are not obliged to do so, the event will not be licensable. No charge will be made if only voluntary donations are sought, so many school activities of the type that we have been 
 debating are already outside the scope of regulated entertainment. 
 Under the Bill, the key point is whether the entertainment is intended to be provided for the public—in other words, whether anybody, whether connected to the school or not, can attend—and whether a charge is made and profit is the aim of the performance. We license commercial activity because the profit motive may override concerns for public safety and public nuisance. We license places open to the public because every citizen should know that his or her interests will be safeguarded, whether the building concerned is a school, a community hall or major commercial concert hall. 
 If a school wants to stage public concerts or activities that generate income, the licensing system is not over-burdensome. We must make sure that that continues to be so. Temporary event notices should not cost the organiser more than £20. That would cover events lasting up to three days, for less than 500 people. Five such events could be staged each year. If a school were more ambitious than that and plans larger events, it would need to obtain a premises licence that should cost no more than £100 initially and £50 each year. 
 I give an undertaking that we will look at developing the guidance for licensing authorities to ensure that over-burdensome and disproportionate conditions are not imposed on schools beyond those that are absolutely necessary to ensure the safety of performers and audiences alike, and to address the other licensing objectives.

Adrian Sanders: When does a surplus on a school production become a profit and who will determine that? I fear that there will be much confusion in schools, which will take up many officers' time with inquiries about whether they should license the event. It would be better to have a much simpler definition that does not lay itself open to over-interested officials delving into what schools are doing, assuming they were instructed to do that by councillors to bring in more licensing fees.

Kim Howells: That is a fair point. Such matters should certainly be included in the information and the guidance that we will put out to local authorities, which will, of course, have statutory effect. We do not want school administrators to have to spend their time worrying about whether they are £10 or £30 above a certain limit in recovering their costs. The hon. Gentleman knows that, because he has had much experience of it, but a lot of schools know very well what it is likely to cost them to put on a performance. If schools in my constituency are anything to go by, they become relaxed about it.
 Having said that, we must ensure that there is no ambiguity in the information that we give out, so that schools do not spend a disproportionate amount of time worrying that an event that they mount will get too far beyond recovery of costs. I expect a good deal of leeway to be given in the way in which the school regards the case and the way in which the licensing authority regards it. I hope that a good deal of common sense would be used. 
 I turn to amendment No. 58. Many of the same arguments apply. While events held in prisons may enjoy—if hon. Members do not mind me saying so—a captive audience, even if it consisted almost entirely of inmates and the people who look after them, they are essentially private events and therefore not licensable, unless a charge is made with a view to profit. That is not likely in such circumstances. The same premise applies to patients in hospitals. An event to which guests and friends are invited in either prisons or hospitals would not be licensable unless a charge intended to generate a profit is made. If the charge were intended to do no more than cover the prison's or hospital's costs for the provision of the entertainment, no profit would be intended and the qualifying conditions for there to be regulated entertainment would not be met. 
 If a prison or hospital wants to stage public concerts or activities that generate income, a licence would be required. As I said, the licensing system is not overly burdensome in that respect. 
 The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire mentioned galleries and museums. Increasingly, those are being used for all sorts of events and commercial activities. They help to generate more income, bring the buildings to life and expose them to a wider audience. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster has a number of venues in his constituency that are increasingly being used in this way and I welcome that. 
 I see no logic in putting such establishments in a privileged position when hosting entertainment events to the public. If they do that occasionally, they can give temporary event notices for up to five occasions a year. If their plans are more ambitious, they need to obtain a premises licence that should cost no more than £100 initially and £50 or so each year. 
 Again, as in the case of schools, the key is where the entertainment is intended to be provided for the public, or where a charge is made and profit is the aim of the performance. We license commercial activity to ensure that the profit motive does not override public safety and public nuisance issues. We license places open to the public because every citizen should know that his or her interests will be safeguarded whether the venue is a school, prison, hospital, museum, gallery or a major commercial concert hall.

Mark Field: I shall explore the practicality of the situation. In my constituency there are a significant number of galleries. They often have small rooms no larger than the chamber that we are in, sometimes on two floors. At the beginning of a new exhibition there may be champagne receptions. The local Conservative association sometimes has drinks parties at galleries—I am sure that if there is a Labour association in my constituency, it does so too.
 Neighbours of galleries in areas such as Mayfair and Belgravia understand that champagne receptions between 6 pm and 8 pm with 60 or 70 people present are part of life. The interests of residents are not going to be upset. That is yet another bureaucratic hurdle 
 that will diminish the civility of life for many people living near galleries.

Kim Howells: I am not sure if the hon. Gentleman refers to private or public galleries. I was referring to public galleries where such activities are traditional. I went to the opening of the David Hockney watercolour exhibition in a gallery in the Bond street and Cork street area. Momentarily, there was traffic chaos outside. I was surprised that there were huge numbers of people in the building, which was on four or five floors and had very small rooms. I am not someone who worries too much about that sort of thing, but I felt that if someone had suddenly panicked there would have been a problem. That is a different matter.
 I am sure that there will be considerations where similar circumstances occur—not necessarily in galleries of the type used by the Conservative party. I am talking about big public venues. If the hon. Gentleman wants to raise the matter of small, private galleries and other public areas, we should consider that point.

Bob Blizzard: My hon. Friend the Minister has made it clear that if a hospital trust puts on an event to raise revenue for the trust—that could happen more and more with foundation hospitals—the event would be licensable. However, an event could be put on by friends of a hospital to raise money for some sort of charitable activity that was incidental, although still connected, to the hospital or an event could be put on by a patient support group—my local hospital often gives space and time to patient support groups and lets them use function rooms—that was simply raising money for that group. Would those activities need to be licensed?

Kim Howells: That depends on the nature of the entertainment, who is there, and where it is held. As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire reminded us when he moved his amendment, hospitals often do not have the sort of public space that is needed for big events, although they do sometimes. If an event were held somewhere else, such as a concert hall, it would be a different event altogether. Essentially, it would be a commercial concert, which could have been organised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), who has great experience of such things. I have tried to describe the conditions that determine how an event held in a hospital would be regarded. I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) meant by the second type of event that he mentioned. I am not sure whether he was talking about a support group that was meeting to discuss particular issues or illnesses or something else. I do not know.

Bob Blizzard: A coronary heart disease patient support group might obtain permission from a hospital to use a function room to put on some entertainment, purely to raise money for that group. Money would not necessarily go to the hospital, but it would help. Such groups are voluntary. They are charities. They might try to raise money for their funds
 by putting a couple of players on, or something like that.

Kim Howells: At the moment, the group would have to pay for a licence for using the space in that way, if it was used with a view to making a profit. Nothing will change under the Bill in that respect. If an event is held with a view to making a profit, we cannot distinguish between charities and other organisations. I have made that clear before.

Andrew Turner: Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells: Could I continue for a moment? No, go on.

Andrew Turner: I might be able to make my point more briefly now than I would be able to in a speech. Is it not the case that many organisations that put on functions with a view to making a profit are greatly experienced in so doing, whereas many charitable organisations, and particularly those that hold functions without a view to making a profit, are far less experienced in that area, when it comes to employing qualified staff and having the necessary impetus to remain in business?

Kim Howells: We cannot frame law based on a gradation of experience. When my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset organised his first rock concert, he made a fortune. He had never organised one before, but he did very well out of it. He will not admit that, but we all know that it is true. The idea seems to be that we should make a law under which he would have been able to make an even bigger profit, simply because he had never organised a concert before. We cannot frame law on that basis.

Jim Knight: Will the Minister give way?

Roger Gale: Order. I do not want to go too far down this road, but as the hon. Gentleman has been referred to, he has a right to comment.

Jim Knight: I am grateful. I have no wish to relive the first rock concert that I may or may not have organised. I simply want to say that if people are inexperienced in organising events, that is all the more reason to give them guidance through regulation. Licensing can be viewed as positive, guiding organisers through some of the safety and regulatory aspects of an event to ensure that it is a success.

Kim Howells: That is a very good point and it reinforces some of my arguments on public safety and the safety of performers. The Musicians Union worries about that, which is why it has a special code of conduct, beyond the health and safety laws of this country.
 Paragraph 14 was added with the best of intentions, but I ask the Committee to remove it in the knowledge that what we propose to do will be safer, more consistent and in the overall public interest.

Mark Hoban: The Minister's final remarks about his changes being more consistent illustrate the problem attached to his amendment and the arguments that he has used in support of it. He has referred to the need to license events for profit because of the risk of nuisance, public safety issues and concerns about the welfare of
 performers and the audience. However, if we consider some of the activities that will not be licensed under the Bill, such as those that relate directly to schools or galleries, we can see that there are risks even if events do not take place for profit. Music practice is not covered by the legislation, but neighbours of a school in my constituency are very exercised about the noise generated there by music practice and samba band classes. Samba bands are popular in Fareham, as are steel bands. The band practice can create a noise problem, but that will not be covered by the regulations even though they will be made retrospectively, not proactively.

Kevan Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that such activities should come within the ambit of the Bill?

Mark Hoban: I am trying to point out the inconsistencies that underlie the Minister's argument on the other activities that come within the Bill's ambit. Some actions that cause equal risk to public safety or noise pollution fall outside the provisions. I am trying to highlight the inconsistency in the Minister's argument, not bring more activities within the scope of the Bill. Music practice, which can create noise problems, is not covered by the Bill. However, if music in a concert is too loud, that will be regulated under the Bill.
 Free concerts in schools could involve a packed school hall full of parents, pupils and guests, and the health and safety issues there would be the same as those at concerts for a profit. Again, it seems inconsistent to regulate one type of activity but not another.

Kevan Jones: I am sorry, but schools have to have a clearly laid-down health and safety policy, usually instigated by the local authority through the governing body. That would cover activities in school halls.

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman has made the point himself. Given that health and safety procedures are already in place for one set of not-for-profit activities, why cannot the same health and safety regulations simply be used for events designed to make a profit whose underlying activity is exactly the same? Whether a concert is free or money is exchanging hands, the underlying activity is the same. Why should not the same health and safety regulations apply to both?
 We have mentioned galleries and the need for commercial events at galleries to be regulated. However, galleries already operate on a commercial basis and have huge crowds entering them, so the same health and safety issues are already there. Anyone who went to the Monet exhibition at the Royal Academy on a Saturday will have been struck by how many people were milling around there, yet the Minister argues that galleries are not capable of managing an entertainment without having additional regulation and bureaucracy imposed on them. They manage the same sort of activity during their ordinary day without having to apply for a licence under the Bill. 
 I am concerned that the arguments used to justify the deletion of paragraph 14 do not add up when one applies the same rationale to other activities.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful to you, Mr. Gale. You have given us the opportunity to have a wide-ranging debate on the amendment.
 As I said, the schedule is based on an entirely wrong-headed approach to regulating entertainment. It is based on the belief that an activity can be analysed and categorised and that judgments can be based on that; it does not focus on how to analyse the ills that may be caused and prevent those from affecting neighbours and the spectators and audiences at entertainments. 
 I am concerned about the Minister's approach to paragraph 14. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) mentioned earlier, it replicates his approach during the previous sitting, which was to consider the most extreme example and use that as a reason for striking down an amendment made in another place. The Minister could have adopted a much more constructive approach by saying, ''There are one or two problems with the amendment and we propose to deal with those problems by tabling further amendments.'' 
 If the paragraph had the construction the Minister placed on it, he would be justified in tabling further amendments to exclude from its ambit raves organised by student unions. That does not, however, justify making licensable a nativity play held with a view to obtaining some extra money for the school transport fund, to assist those who cannot go on school expeditions. People would be covered by the legislation if they organised a nativity play and charged £2.50, instead of £2, for friends and parents of pupils and took the view that the £2 would cover the cost but charging £2.50 would give a little extra profit for another good purpose. 
 It is absurd to treat a nativity play the same as a student union rave. However, that is the approach that the Minister has taken. It is no good him saying that such a play would only cost the organisers £20. The fact is that people do not want to get involved in arguments about licensing and whether there would be a profit—they do not want to deal with the bureaucracy. 
 The Department for Education and Skills is publishing documents explaining how to remove bureaucracy from teachers but the Minister is loading additional bureaucracy on to them. He will say that it is not additional, because it is already there. However, I would be surprised if there were many nativity plays in my constituency that were regarded as licensable entertainment by either their promoters or the local authority. 
 Why does the Minister constantly pick the worst possible interpretation of their Lordship's amendments and use that as a reason to strike them down, instead of trying constructively to make them work better? The answer is that he is advised, or he has concluded, that his Bill is perfect in all practical possibilities and cannot be improved, however many days we spend trying to improve it. That is an unfortunate approach. 
 I do not see how the provision of a nightclub is directly connected, for the relevant purposes, to the activities of the establishment. The activity of an educational establishment is education and the promotion of dances, raves and nightclubbing is not directly connected to that, unless it is done as part of a course of education. I do not think that it would be licensable even if that were the case, because elsewhere the schedule suggests that an activity directly related to a course of education is not licensable. 
 Therefore, it seems that one can promote a profit-making nightclub if one happens to be on the kind of course that the hon. Member for South Dorset did not need to go on before undertaking his promotion—many people go on such courses nowadays. However, if not, one cannot promote an event in the same building, for just as many people, that makes just as much noise and has the same health and safety threats and involves alcohol consumption. That would be an absurdity. Is my interpretation of the Bill correct? The Minister should look again at the paragraph. He has already promised my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster that he will do so for other purposes. The Minister should consider whether he could improve on it, rather than simply tear it out of the Bill. 
 Profit is another motivation of which the Minister is clearly suspicious. [Interruption.] Well, he is suspicious that the motive of profit—[Interruption.] He snorts and says, ''Oh.''

Kim Howells: It is a sigh.

Andrew Turner: That is a more favourable interpretation. The Minister says, in so many words, that profit is a motivation that can override concern for health and safety, although other motivations, he assumes, do not. I do not think that the profit motive is so dangerous that it is likely to lead to greater carelessness among those organising such events than among those putting on charitable or other activities. I do not know why the Minister cannot accept that people who have a long track record of putting on such events may be far better qualified to do so than those who are doing so for the first time.
 I find it difficult to understand why the Minister says that we cannot frame law on the basis of experience. In relation to personal licences, he has framed law on the basis of, if not experience, at least qualifications. I assume that one of the licensing authority's considerations when deciding whether to award a licence is the experience of those promoting the entertainment. The approach taken in the Bill is entirely inconsistent and open to many arguments. The Minister should reconsider his amendment. 
 To draw on the example given by the hon. Member for Waveney, a concert held in a hospital canteen to raise money for a major item of hospital equipment, promoted by the friends of the hospital, would be a licensable activity. That is what the Minister is saying. I attended an event of exactly that kind just before Christmas.

Bob Blizzard: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if the event were of sufficient scale and the audience were big enough, one would need to ensure that it was properly organised by some licensing regime? Otherwise, we could end up with more people in hospital as a result of that event.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman put his finger on it when he said that that would be the case if the event were of sufficient scale and the audience were big enough. However, the event does not have to be on any particular scale to be licensable. Because it is promoted not by the hospital but by the friends of the hospital, it is licensable if it makes even a penny—not of profit, but of income. It is the fact that it is the hospital, and not an organisation such as the friends of the hospital, that is promoting the event that makes it unlicensable.
 Again, I am afraid that the Minister has dug a pit for himself, and the further amendments that he has tabled make the pit deeper and deeper. I fear that a host of worthy events will be brought within the ambit of the legislation. I spoke to the chief executive of the local authority in my constituency yesterday. He feared the same. We may have misinterpreted the legislation. If the Minister can give assurances, I shall be much happier than I was when I stood up.

Bob Blizzard: I do not intend to say too much about the rest of the Bill, but there are one or two things I would like to say about the schedule and I am mindful of your guidance, Mr. Gale. If I am going to say them, I need to say them now.
 It is evident from what we have heard over quite a few hours that the Government, and the Minister in particular, are committed to a clear, straightforward, simple and coherent licensing regime that protects the public, and we cannot doubt the Minister's desire to see entertainment of all kinds flourish. I welcome the proposal for a one-stop shop and the simplicity of just ticking a box. However, I have some doubts that a local authority will always make life as simple as that. I have a concern, which I experienced when working in local government, about local authorities' capacity to make a meal of a small number of objections, or of relatively trivial objections. It only takes one over-zealous officer employed by an authority to lead to a long and protracted process to achieve something simple. 
 One's view of the likelihood of that happening depends on where one is in the country. In my part of the country, there is a number of typically small market towns. There is not much entertainment in those towns, because a lot of the people who live in the towns—sometimes characterised as being more elderly—do not like to have any. At the moment, there can be small levels of entertainment under the inconsistent, incoherent two-in-a-bar rule. I fear that in such communities, when those activities become licensable, there will be objections. There will be objections from elderly people purely because they do not like anything happening at all. [Interruption.] I can see it. I understand their point of view but one has to have a balance. 
 In many local authorities, the bulk of the elected members are themselves retired. The probability is that some licensing committees in some parts of the country will be greatly influenced by objections from people who do not want anything happening. I fear that, in some of the smaller communities, there will be no entertainment at all, and young people will pile into cars or other vehicles and go to larger towns in pursuit of entertainment, often, I have to say, with disastrous consequences. Some of the roads in my area are littered with floral memorials to people who have died in accidents but I accept that other influences are involved in such accidents. 
 It will come down to the guidance. I tend to think that we will need rather magical guidance. The Minister said that the guidance would need a strong dose of common sense. I hope that he can deliver that. I fear that we are left with a schedule that contains inconsistencies. There is an inconsistency between, for example, the status of a small live gig that would be licensed and a broadcast event on a big screen with a large audience that is not licensable. There is an inconsistency between a small live gig and an incidental performance. I understand from what I heard that if an unknown piano player were playing in the bar and a sign outside said that he was playing there on that Thursday night, that event would be licensable. On the other hand, to take a name that we have all heard of, if John Dankworth turned up on Thursday night and, because word had got around that he was going to do so, a lot of people turned up to see him play, that could be regarded as incidental. There is an inconsistency in that. 
 There is also an inconsistency between the small live gig and other activities that we have discussed under this schedule that are not to be licensed, such as comedy and martial arts. The argument that there is not an inconsistency was based on the claim that no problems have ever been reported with comedians and martial arts. However, I cannot find data or other evidence that shows that sufficient problems have been reported with small live gigs to justify licensing every one of them.

Kim Howells: I do not think that that is the argument.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister has been using it.

Kim Howells: No, I have not.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney drew comparisons with material that might be broadcast through a television set and mentioned martial arts events. They have never been licensed but music played by more than two in a bar has always been licensed. We are not extending licensing: we are trying to make it easier for licensed music to take place. My hon. Friend should recognise that. 
 We have not been adding up the number of complaints about music or anything else. As I have tried to argue, other factors are involved in the performance of live music that may vary, and often it is difficult to differentiate between one form of music and another and what their likely effects will be. Our 
 argument is that it will be much easier if there is a level playing field for all music: that would make it much easier to stage music events throughout the country. The Musicians Union initially made that argument.

Bob Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that. He made that point earlier in the debate. That is another argument that he has advanced to square the inconsistency. There is not only an argument about problems and complaints. There is also the argument that it is not the desire of Government to extend licensing to other activities. However, the problem is that licensing is being extended to certain small live musical events that were not previously licensed. That is an inconsistency. That is why I argued for some kind of de minimis approach that would not result in small events that are currently unlicensed moving into a licensing regime. That was the essence of my argument.

Malcolm Moss: I know that the hon. Gentleman shares our concerns that licensing for what in many instances are small gigs is the heavy hand of bureaucracy. Has he considered that grandfather rights could be given to those establishments that currently use two-in-a-bar exemptions?

Bob Blizzard: I have not considered that. I have asked for a constructive approach to try to find some kind of de minimis approach that is justified and can work. I accept that amendments that have been tabled for this debate would not work, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Minister stated. However, I believe that if there is a will to find a way forward, it could happen. It is important that we try to do so. If the proposed regime is deemed to be disproportionate to the problem that it is attempting to solve, that may exercise the minds of the human rights people who plague this House. It would be a shame if a Bill that is so well-intentioned got bogged down in human rights issues for want of a more proportionate or de minimis approach.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend not agree that this legislation will make it easier for venues to put on performances? At the moment, if a venue of whatever size wants to put on a public entertainment, it has to have an alcohol licence if it wants to serve alcohol and an entertainment licence, which is very expensive. For example, in the city of Newcastle the average cost was about £400 when I used to deal with those licences. This measure will open up a lot of venues that under current law do not go to the trouble and expense of having a public entertainment licence. The number of venues may rise, not fall, because of this legislation.

Bob Blizzard: I agree with my hon. Friend, which is why I began my remarks by saying that I welcome the one-stop-shop approach and the simplicity of the regime being proposed. That regime has much to commend it. I have just tried to draw attention to what I believe are one or two small problems that I hope can be dealt with. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will think further about them and, at a later stage, come up with some solutions.

Roger Gale: I call the Minister.

Kim Howells: I do not wish to make a speech.

Malcolm Moss: May I use this opportunity to wind up my comments on the amendment and to range a little more widely, as there will not be a stand part debate?
 Having listened to the Minister's comments, I cannot accept that our fairly modest amendment is reckless in the extreme or will produce extreme results. It is an attempt to provide a sensible and practical interpretation of what is entertainment and should be regulated. Many of my colleagues have put their fingers on the button. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) pointed to a distinction being made here: an event may be in a crowded hall, but as long as it does not make a profit it is deemed to be all right, whereas if a £2 profit is made, it is deemed to be either unsafe or a nuisance. That is illogical. 
 Let us look at a school putting on a function. It will be wondering whether it has to apply for a licence. It has a hall and a capacity. If it is putting on a Gilbert and Sullivan production, does it know whether it will pack the hall out every night? Of course not. It needs to set a charge so that it does not make a profit but just covers its cost. How does it determine that? How does that school determine how much to charge and evaluate how many people will turn up, not just on one night but over a week? 
 The Minister seems to be saying that if that school does not make a profit, that is acceptable but if it does make a profit the event should have been licensed. That is the inconsistency that the Opposition cannot make head or tail of. The issue is not just the charge made but whether there is a profit. If the school inadvertently makes a profit because it has not made the right calculations, what happens then? Will there be a fine? Will the local authority come round and say, ''We have checked your numbers and your books''?

Kim Howells: No.

Malcolm Moss: So the local authority will not police that. Why, then, would the school bother in the first place even to think about applying for a licence?
 It seems to my colleagues and me that capacity is the key. According to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), who is experienced in such matters—there is no doubt in our minds that he speaks with authority—if there are health and safety requirements in situ for an establishment, including a school, those will deal with the safety aspects of having people sitting in the school hall. Those must already have been taken into account. 
Mr. Jones indicated assent.

Malcolm Moss: The hon. Gentleman is nodding his head. So we know that there are capacity limits. We know that someone has checked the fire doors. We know that the school has a fire certificate. Why, then, are we adding another tier of bureaucracy? Our amendment is a simple attempt to find out why the Government intend to do that. The Opposition have not heard any sensible arguments to justify it. The Minister said that if a provision is ambiguous, he will do something about it.

Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Moss: I will in a moment.
 The Minister implied that he would do something about that in the guidance but the measure is ambiguous. It is not clear-cut.

Kim Howells: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has not once mentioned what constitutes an educational establishment in the amendment. He has not mentioned universities or further education colleges—

Malcolm Moss: I am coming to them.

Kim Howells: Perhaps he will—I am glad.
 The rules that may apply at any given time to a school hall, or to another building in which an entertainment may be held, are there for what one might call normal school functions, which will sometimes include a school concert or carol service. If there were no compunction on a school to seek a licence for a completely different activity, which may involve the construction of a stage or the use of materials that were not normally used in school, would not it be better for there to be some kind of pre-notification? We think that that should occur through licensing, in order that everybody involved in such a performance—there will be performances that are different from day-to-day events—could be monitored properly by the responsible authorities.

Malcolm Moss: I hear what the Minister says but he still has not answered the point about why the profit motive triggers the necessity for an application for a licence in the first instance. In many instances, as I tried to explain earlier, people would not know when they started whether they would make a profit.

Kim Howells: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but my point is linked with the one I made initially about universities, colleges and the nightclubs in student unions. One cannot cherry-pick; the amendment has a lot of force. If activities that are dangerous to the public and the performers are to carry on, the licensing regime must be pre-notified or else there will be incidents.
 The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) accused me of putting the worst possible colour on the amendments. Of course, one has to. One does not legislate simply for pick-pockets; one legislates right the way through to include murderers. The idea that there should be no enforcement because such things are largely unlikely to happen is wrong. We must have laws that ensure that the kind of disasters that we saw recently in American nightclubs do not happen in educational institutions, or in any other venues in this country. That is why we insist that there be a licensing regime.

Roger Gale: Order. I am afraid I have to apply the same rule to the Minister as I apply to Back Benchers. The Minister has intervened on a number of occasions this morning. I gave him the opportunity to wind up the debate and he chose not to do so. I am afraid the Minister must obey the same rules as everybody else.

Malcolm Moss: The example of the nightclub fire in the United States is an extreme example; my hon. Friends have pointed out on more than one occasion that the Minister has used extreme examples. We have
 regulations that would have prevented such a thing, so to use that example is less than fair; I will not say less than honest—the Minister knows what I mean.
 The amendment that attaches to educational establishments says: 
''for the purposes directly connected to the activities of the establishment.''
 Those are educational purposes connected with what the establishment does. I do not see how the discos, raves and bars associated with some universities are directly related to the purposes of the educational establishment. If the Minister feels that the amendment falls down because of our terminology regarding educational establishments, and that it would have been better to use the word ''institution'', why does he not table an amendment to solve the problem? He does not want to do that. 
Dr. Howells rose—

Malcolm Moss: Let me carry on for a little while longer.
 The Minister and those behind the legislation have set their minds against the proposal. They seem to feel that there must be catch-all legislation that allows nothing to fall through, even though there is no public safety issue, there are no complaints and no real public nuisance. They say that those events must be included, because it would be unfair to allow some to escape and not others. The Bill is there to protect the public. If there is no public safety and nuisance issue, why are we legislating? Why are we forcing people to jump through these hoops, which in many cases are unnecessary? That problem lies behind the whole schedule.

Kevan Jones: The students union in Durham is in the centre of the city and is an integral part of the university and so is the students union at Newcastle university. Noise and public safety issues will clearly arise, but the students union in Durham would have something to say if its activities could not be licensed. Therefore I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. A public nuisance could be created in certain circumstances.

Malcolm Moss: I thought that I had covered that point, but to ensure that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) understands what I am saying, I shall repeat it.
 We are not saying that where there is a public nuisance or a public safety issue there should not be legislation or a licence. We argue—this is the reason for the wording of the amendment—that the students union is not directly connected to the purposes of the educational establishment. It is an associated activity, but it is not directly connected. It is there for student socialising. It is not there for an educational purpose, unless the hon. Gentleman wants to argue that a students union is educational. Is he going to do that?

Kevan Jones: Quite a few rooms in the students union at Durham university are used for educational purposes, including, for example, speeches by eminent politicians of both political parties.

Malcolm Moss: That is a ridiculous point, and I shall not even answer it.

Jim Knight: I shall offer another real-life example that addresses the educational element of the amendment. I spent a happy 18 months working in Basingstoke on the campus of a sixth-form college, managing an arts centre in an auditorium provided for the educational purpose of the college's theatre arts courses, but also used for commercial purposes as an arts centre. Under the amendment, the arts centre would be on the premises of an educational establishment for educational use, but because we were also using it for commercial purposes extra technology and risk were attached to that use.

Roger Gale: Order. Having gently chided Front-Bench Members, I should gently chide those on the Back Benches too. Hon. Members must try to restrain themselves from making interventions during interventions. I appreciate that sometimes a slightly longer intervention may prevent a much longer speech and the Chair is prepared to be reasonably tolerant, but by the same token we must try to stick to the ground rules.

Malcolm Moss: While I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Gale, I am happy to take as long an intervention as is necessary—

Roger Gale: Order. The hon. Gentleman may be, but the Chairman is not.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful for your stricture, Mr. Gale.
 In more ways than one, we have achieved our aim of having a thorough debate to ensure that the schedule is tested to destruction—we are getting fairly close to that. 
 At the heart of the amendment lies the problem of understanding what is involved in ticking the magic box on entertainment licences. I am sure that it will be easy to go through the application form, tick the box and send the form off to the local authority. The Minister would have us believe that, winging back by return of post will come the licence that says, ''You are allowed to have entertainment. It costs you no extra to your alcohol licence.'' Therefore, the case is made that it is easy, it does not cost any money and all the rest of it. What specifically will come back on an entertainment licence? Will it say, ''Your establishment can only be used for X number of people at any event'', so that a maximum is placed on it? Will it say, ''Your establishment must take these safety precautions and you will need a fire certificate from the fire authority to substantiate that''? Will it say, ''Your establishment must have health and safety issues and regulations properly determined''? Those may already be in place but they still have to be substantiated. What happens if one wants a variation? Does a person have to re-apply? Is there a cost for re-applying? What does the variation ask the licensing authority to do? Is it to increase the numbers? Is it to say, ''I'm only putting on small bands or the odd stand-up comedian as my entertainment, or occasionally the Joe Loss orchestra''—all 45 of them, or whatever it is? Will the licence specify what can or cannot be done? It is not going to be that easy. 
 In all the schedules about entertainment, the Minister has not told us exactly what would go on an entertainment licence application. I hope that he will help us clearly understand what is involved. It patently will not be as easy as he thinks, when most of the people out there—the people involved in entertainment—are still totally against what is proposed in the Bill. It is no good saying that the guidance will deliver and tell local authorities how to interpret it. If the guidance is going to tell them in the way that I have described, it will be incredibly prescriptive. Local authorities will have no leeway, no licence and no freedom to make interpretations on the ground in local areas, in response to what they see as local needs. 
 If it is not prescriptive, but will allow local authorities to interpret applications flexibly, then there will be postcode licensing in the way that we have postcode health care. In other words, local councils will do what they think is best in their own areas. I am not necessarily against that, but there will be no consistency around the country. There will be inconsistency, and contiguous local authorities may have completely different interpretations of entertainment licences, which I do not think is the Government's intention. However, I have read part of the guidance and I think that it is going down the road of being fairly prescriptive. Not only will it tell local authorities what they can and cannot do, but it will tell them what fees they can charge and no more. I have had representations from local authorities, as have many of my colleagues, saying, ''We can't do this with the fees that have been mentioned, we will be out of pocket''. It is yet another stealth tax on taxpayers—and another stealth tax on council tax payers, because the Government are as usual giving local authorities far more responsibility, all this extra work, and not delivering the grant to pay for it. 
 It is not just the authorities that are on our side of the fence, every Labour Committee member has problems with local authority finance—

Roger Gale: Order. Even by my notoriously generous standards, this is going wide of the schedule.

Malcolm Moss: I beg your pardon, Mr. Gale, for straying slightly into unknown, or rather important, territory.
 We do not think that the Government have argued their case for this schedule. We have pointed out the inconsistencies and the illogicality. The Government say that in cases where there has been no licence before, there will be no need to license in future. We agree with that. We do not want to increase bureaucracy and legislation. We want to deregulate as best we can. However, it is all very well to say that where there has been no problem before there will be no inclusion—yet the criteria behind that exemption are no different from some of the criteria that apply to activities that are included. That is an inconsistency. The Government, in their attempts to have this all-embracing licensing of entertainment, have brought in far more regulation. There are many people, including this side of the Committee—and people involved out 
 there in entertainment—who are seriously worried that it will undermine our culture and the delivery of art in all its forms, not just music. The Minister has indirect responsibility for the Arts Council. That comes under his remit, no doubt.

Kim Howells: It does not.

Malcolm Moss: All right, but it comes under his Secretary of State's remit.
 The Arts Council has said that the Bill will cause real difficulty. In fact, I think that it was the body that proposed the small premises exemption. The figure of 250 was decided on after an argument for a figure between 200 and 300. That was an Arts Council initiative. So, the senior body for the arts in this country is clearly telling the Government that the Bill is wrong and will do great harm. The Government are not prepared to allow the small premises exemption—they deleted that provision from the Bill on Tuesday—but they are not prepared to propose a sensible alternative, either. They have set their mind against real change in the Bill. 
 The Bill started off as the responsibility of the Home Office and ended up in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. There has been no pre-legislative scrutiny, so it has not been considered in as much detail as it should perhaps have been. It has been considered in the other place and at this late stage in its progress there are still inconsistencies and problems with it, but the Government do not seem at all exercised in addressing the issues. Not only will we press the amendment to a Division, but we will vote against schedule 1. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 5, in 
schedule 1, page 113, line 3, leave out paragraph 14.—[Dr. Howells.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That this schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Roger Gale: Order. My legendary powers of telepathy suggest that this would be a good moment to suspend the Committee until 10.20 am for the Programming Sub-Committee to meet. Hon. Members who are not on the Sub-Committee may leave the room, but those who are should remain.
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming. 
 Ordered, 
That the Order of the Committee [1st April] be amended as follows: 
 (1) at the end of paragraph (1), insert ''and on Tuesday 6th May the Committee shall meet at 4.30 pm only;''; 
 (2) in paragraph (4), leave out ''Thursday 3rd'' and insert ''Tuesday 8th''; 
 (3) in paragraph (7), leave out ''11.25 am'' and insert ''7 pm''; and 
 (4) in each of paragraphs (8), (9) and (10), leave out ''11.25 am'' and insert ''5 pm''.—[Dr. Howells.]

Roger Gale: That resolution is complex as it has a knock-on effect through the sittings and I say to any Member who is in any doubt as to its precise impact that it will appear on the Amendment Paper.
 It would also be courteous of me to tell the Committee that I indicated in the Sub-Committee that if for the sake of completeness it becomes helpful to sit either for an extra half an hour on Tuesday next—from 2.30 pm until 5.30 pm rather than 5 o'clock—I am prepared to accommodate that. However, Mr. Benton will be in the Chair, and he may take a different view. If he does so, I have also said that I am prepared to reconvene the Committee from 6 pm until 7 pm. We hope that that will not be necessary, but Members might find it helpful in terms of their diaries to bear in mind that the latest that we are likely to be employed on this Bill on Tuesday is 7 pm and it may well be earlier. 
 Schedule 2 agreed to. 
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Licensing Authorities

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in
clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 34 to 38 and insert— 
 '(a) the licensing justices, as defined in section 2 of the Licensing Act (1964) (c.26),'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 60, in 
clause 3, page 2, leave out line 40.
 Amendment No. 61, in 
clause 3, page 2, leave out line 41.
 Amendment No. 64, in 
clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert— 
 '( ) The University of Cambridge,'.
 Amendment No. 62, in 
clause 7, page 4, line 31, leave out subsection (2).
 Amendment No. 63, in 
clause 8, page 5, line 33, leave out subsection (10).

Malcolm Moss: I will start with amendments Nos. 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64 and come to amendment No. 59 afterwards.
 Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 are consequential on Amendments Nos. 60 and 61. Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 delete subsections (f) and (g), which refer to 
''the Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple''
 and 
''the Under-Treasurer of the Middle Temple''.
 Those subsections contravene the main purpose and thrust of the Bill, which is to transfer power from licensing justices to democratically accountable and elected local authorities. Due to their nature, the Middle and Inner Temples are not democratically accountable institutions. It is our understanding that benchers govern both the Middle and Inner Temples having been elected by their fellow benchers, rather than by members of the Inn or those who live and work there. Not much democracy is involved in that. Due to their self-perpetuating nature, those bodies are not accountable to an electorate and are only answerable themselves. 
 In addition, the question arises as to whether the Inner and Middle Temples have taken steps to prepare themselves for carrying out the functions of the Bill. For example, do they have the necessary expertise to prepare a statement of licensing policy? Will they establish procedures for granting licences to premises? I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about those questions. 
 On amendment No. 64, those of us who happened to be blessed with three or four years at that wonderful institution the university of Cambridge, as I was, were completely unaware that the university was responsible for its own licensing and policy on drinking. I feel that that responsibility should be recognised and respected in the Bill. There is no known reason to revoke the tradition. It is hardly a major 
 issue, but by including the provision, the Government would allow the tradition to be maintained.

Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he wants to respect tradition in relation to the university of Cambridge, but not in relation to the Temples?

Malcolm Moss: I have knowledge of the workings of the university of Cambridge—albeit that it was 30 or 40 years ago—and there have been no complaints about the judicious and efficient way in which the university has administered its drinking policy.

Jim Knight: I have to confess that I, too, was privileged to attend the university of Cambridge. However, I recall plenty of circumstances in which disorder resulted from the drinking activities of students and members of the university. It seems logical to put such matters under the jurisdiction of the licensing authority, which is democratically accountable.

Malcolm Moss: I am not in favour of making legislation on the basis of the experience of one Member—[Interruption.] I thoroughly researched the matter and in my day, there were certainly no problems. The hon. Gentleman is much younger than I am. I shall move on.
 Amendment No. 59 will doubtless be described as a wrecking amendment, in so far as it drives a sword to the heart of the Bill. The Minister has already mentioned some of the reasons behind the Government's decision to move the responsibility for licensing policy and the issuing of licences from magistrates to local authorities. We tabled the amendment because we have had strong representations from those who are directly involved, who say that they are less than happy about the prospect of the change. 
 We have also had representations, albeit not necessarily in a direct sense, from some local authorities. They are faced with setting up a whole new edifice to cope with the requirements. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said this morning that he has had conversations with the chief executive of his local authority. Local authorities are expressing some concerns that many of them will not be ready in time—we will discuss the transition period later—for the huge undertaking involved in transferring the issuing of licences from justices. 
 Perhaps there is a hidden agenda. Huge changes are required in the magistracy, so perhaps the move emanates from the Lord Chancellor's Department, rather than from the Home Office or the DCMS. If magistrates are to perform different roles in the future, if their responsibilities are to be reduced and their activities curtailed, and if there are ideas of winding down the service or making it more cost-effective, perhaps those things are driving licensing away from magistrates and into the arms of local authorities. Local authorities already do a lot of licensing work, so it seems easy to shift the whole process across to them. A number of matters need to be considered. 
 Good licensing practice needs local knowledge of known troublemakers, problematic haunts and so on. Magistrates have gained local knowledge through their experience over time. Many local councils do not. Councillors change at every election. In many cases, they do not have the thread of experience that magistrates have acquired over many years. Regional councils do not have the slightest idea about what is happening in pubs 50 or 60 miles away. 
 Who is supporting the move to local authorities? In a recent independent poll of about 1,000 publicans, 94 per cent. of the respondents wanted to retain magistrates. It will be hard to introduce new systems without the good will of licensees. Magistrates have done a good job for many years. The Minister is nodding his head. There is no question that they have failed in their duties and responsibilities. In the main, there have been no substantial complaints about the way that they have administered the system. On the contrary, there is a general acceptance both by those who apply for licences and the general public, that they have done an excellent job. Why make the change? It is a cost-effective service. The current licence fee administered by magistrates is about £10 a year. The new fee is expected to be between £100 and £500, an increase by a factor of 10.

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a one-off charge for the lifetime of premises. The savings are considerable and are not disputed in that respect.

Malcolm Moss: I thought that it was a 10-year licence.

Kim Howells: No.

Malcolm Moss: Is it a lifetime licence that is renewable every 10 years?

Kim Howells: No.

Malcolm Moss: Perhaps we should check that. We will come to that matter later. Whatever the fees will be, local authorities are already worried whether they will cover their costs.

Kevan Jones: Would there not be a saving to individual premises? At the moment, those without a public entertainment licence have to apply for a separate licence and expense would be involved in that. Fees also vary from council to council. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, some licences cost £20,000 a year.

Malcolm Moss: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We do not dispute the fact that there is variation in licences from authority to authority, and we know that in many cases they are extremely expensive. We have not discussed costings or fees, so we do not know what the new regime will introduce. The Minister and the debate in the other place suggested that those would represent a saving, but we have yet to see the result of adding fees to the system.

Mark Hoban: Is my hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding the suggestion that there may be a saving, most licensees oppose the change from magistrates to local authorities? There is widespread concern among licensees in my constituency who are prominent in their industry and trade bodies that the
 system will be more bureaucratic and oppressive for pubs, despite the savings.

Malcolm Moss: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I mentioned the response to the poll, which was that 94 per cent. of licensees—mainly pub landlords and tenants, I readily admit, and better the devil you know than the devil you don't know—want to retain magistrates. In my experience as an MP, I have had a number—not many—of complaints from licensees who had problems with the magistrates, but in those cases I concluded that the magistrates were taking the right action. No doubt many hon. Members have had the same experience.

Adrian Sanders: Has the hon. Gentleman shared my experience that most of the objections to the current system are not about the decision of the magistrate, but the High Court appeals that overturned it?

Malcolm Moss: I cannot agree or disagree with that, because I have not dealt with such cases. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can elaborate on that, but I have not received any complaints of that nature.

Graham Stringer: The hon. Gentleman makes the case that extra costs are associated with the provision. The regulatory impact assessment shows a £1.97 billion saving. Can he explain where he disagrees with that?

Malcolm Moss: I was going to deal with costs later. I, too, have the assessment and I intend to speak about it. If the hon. Gentleman believes that there are £1.9 billion of savings, he would believe anything.
 While we are on the subject of costs and cost-effectiveness, it may be true that there is an element of subsidy involved in the present system and the magistrates in their fee-charging structure do not cover the real costs of providing the service. That is a separate issue that could be addressed by changing the fee structure, rather than shifting the whole thing across to local authorities. As the Minister mentioned, there will be costs upfront during the transition period. I have had information from the British Beer and Pub Association. It has calculated the costs as best it can, on the basis of possible fee structures that may be implemented. Managed premises could be faced with transition costs of around £200 in legal fees, which is twice the figure normally allocated. Given the application fee of about £500 per pub, the cost of advertising would add nearly £400, since most pubs are likely to seek a variation at least to retain the two-musician band on their entertainment licence. 
 Setting aside the cost, the transition period will require each local authority to set up new systems and recruit staff. That is supposed to take place in six months. Every pub and every licensee will have to apply for a licence and there will be double handling of all the charges during the transitional period. That short time scale could lead not only to a high-risk policy, but to potential disaster. Speed of response to changing circumstances is an essential requirement in the licensing arena. At the moment, magistrates respond extremely quickly to local needs as they arise. Many will give up time at a weekend to have a sitting and agree a licence application. We do not 
 envisage that local authorities will be anything like as co-operative and flexible.

Martin Linton: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me why those arguments do not apply equally to the City of London? By applying the amendment to lines 34 to 38, he has excluded every local authority in the country from being a licensing authority apart from the City of London.

Malcolm Moss: The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is hardly a major one. The amendment addresses the decision to move the whole edifice of licensing from magistrates to local authorities. The Government must substantiate why they feel the need to do that. A debate in the other place has covered that matter, which is important because it is at the heart of the Bill. Local authorities must understand what is expected of them. Local authorities are already saying, ''Hold on a minute''. They can see the argument that the move fits in reasonably well with what they are already doing, but they have the pressures of the transition period to consider and they do not know what the costs will be. The guidance is not as flexible as some of them would like, which provides considerable problems.

Martin Linton: The hon. Gentleman said that my point was hardly substantial, but he wants to exclude every district council and county council in England, every county and county borough in Wales and every London borough, but not the City of London. Surely consistency is important. Has the hon. Gentleman done that because he has an interest in the City, because the City is the only non-democratically elected local authority in the entire country, or because his hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster represents the City?

Malcolm Moss: It is none of those things. I do not have any interest in the City, although I have some shares. Does that count as being involved in the City? I suspect not.

Mark Field: I shall overreach my hon. Friend to answer, in part, the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton). There are, of course, historical norms for the City of London. That also explains the issue relating to the Middle and Inner Temple, part of which are in the City of London and part in the City of Westminster. Hence, they have been treated as separate for licensing purposes for some time. That is an historic anomaly; such anomalies obviously have their part to play, which, I am sure, is why my hon. Friend has decided that there should be ongoing different treatment for that very narrow part of London.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which cleared up some problems.
 On the judicial function, one of the new licensing aims, as the Minister has oft repeated, is to prevent public nuisance. Local authority environmental health officers will be much involved and will have to prosecute. However, we think that much of the new law is subjective. If councils adjudicate in such cases, they will act as both judge and jury. We will come to 
 the guidance notes under clause 179, but perhaps I can allude to paragraph 4.11 of the guidance here, which, tellingly, says: 
''Whether or not incidents can be regarded as being 'in the vicinity' of licensed premises . . . is . . . to be decided by the courts in cases of dispute.''
 Licensees, as I have mentioned, respect the present system. There have been occasional problems but in the main, better the devil they know than the devil they do not. They respect the system because under it, they are answerable to the courts. We suggest that that is why there are so few problems with ordinary licensing. 
 On cost, one of the main selling points that the Government have used until now—perhaps the Minister will back off from it—is in the White Paper, which I have before me. The sections at the back deal with costs, resources and compliance costs. The White Paper was published some time ago, as we all know, by the Home Office. To my knowledge, there has been no amendment to the figures in the White Paper since the date of publication, April 2000. There has, therefore, been only the one attempt to produce costings. For those who have access to the document, chapter 13, ''Costs and Resources'', starts at page 52, and compliance costs are on page 69 in appendix 4. That is where the Government claim, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) did in his intervention, that there will be savings of about £1.9 billion over the first 10 years of operation of the new system. 
 I have read the White Paper several times and I recommend it to members of the Committee who have not read it. However, I recommend that they set aside at least four or five hours, because it is incredibly turgid and difficult to follow. I wonder whether the Minister has read it. When he replies perhaps he will tell us that he has read it and understands it.

Kim Howells: I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have read the White Paper, but I am not about to give a literary criticism of it; I am about to refer to the details in it and not to the reading experience.

Malcolm Moss: We now know that the Minister has read it, so he will be able to answer any questions on it that come up in Committee.

Kim Howells: Of course.

Malcolm Moss: That is good news for everybody.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that literary criticism is sometimes important for White Papers placed before the public as a statement of Government policy? If they are turgid and impossible to understand, the public cannot respond properly.

Malcolm Moss: One of the most critical aspects of the White Paper is the assumption that it makes that, under the present system, the average cost to a chain of pubs for applications for alcohol licences and PELs is about £3 million over 10 years. There is a chain not far from here—I shall not mention the name, but I am sure the Minister knows which they are—with 360 pubs, which is slightly more than the example given in
 the White Paper. Their costs—the actual costs that the managers of the business know about because they are in their accounts—are less than £250,000. How on earth can we believe any of the White Paper's figures when it alludes to a chain of 300 pubs having costs of £3 million, while a chain of pubs not far from here has costs of about £250,000?

Kevan Jones: Clearly it depends on the type of licence. If they are on-licences, that might be the case, but if the pubs have public entertainment licences, as they are in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster and given the rates that Westminster council charges, it would be more than £200,000.

Malcolm Moss: I do not dispute that fact. It is an incredibly difficult exercise to do. I am not saying that it is easy. The hon. Gentleman should try to read it.

Kevan Jones: I have.

Malcolm Moss: The Government say that there will be about £1.9 billion of savings over 10 years and they use that as an argument to persuade people that the switch from magistrates to local authorities will be good for everybody. From my reading of the White Paper, which I commend to every member of the Committee, I believe that if the Government make the wrong assumptions at the beginning, saying that a chain of pubs will pay £3 million as opposed to £250,000, they are bound to end up extrapolating those figures to conclusions that are miles out.
 I do not know what the real figures are, because, as the hon. Member for North Durham said, it is complex to calculate them. To do so would depend on the size of the operation, whether PELs are being applied for, which council area one is in, and so on. However, the document purports to give a sensible, pragmatic, analytical look at the whole question of costs and it is full of holes. 
 When the responsibilities are transferred to local authorities there may well be a wailing and gnashing of teeth from those involved because their costs will not have decreased. The document says that there will be a £5,000 saving. Authorities' costs will have gone up and they will be paying out more that they have in the past. If one of the arguments that the Government are using is ''This is going to save you money, boys'', those figures do not assure me that that is the case. It is up to the Minister to justify the figures and acknowledge that saving costs is not one of the positive reasons for making the change.

Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as a result of this legislation, certainly in Westminster because of the stealth tax imposed by the Conservative council, people who have public entertainment licences will make substantial savings?

Malcolm Moss: Yes, that is the case because Westminster charges more than other local authorities. It is already saying that if there is a fixed-fee structure it will not be able to deliver as it does at the moment. That is not my argument. I am saying that the Government's figures on the cost of compliance compared with the current cost do not bear scrutiny. Those figures cannot be
 justified and if the basis for making the switch is that there will be a saving, I think that it is unproven.
 The Government should retract any argument that says that licensees will save money. I suspect that once the local authorities get their hands on the process, there will be real fear. One of the reasons that publicans are saying that they would rather stay with magistrates than make the switch is their experience of PELs. Their experience of applying to local authorities for PELs is horrendous in many instances. The last thing that they want is to turn to local authorities for all their licensing. They are resisting that change and it is down to the Government to make the case that a switch of the sort suggested in the Bill is beneficial to the community and to those involved.

Adrian Sanders: The position adopted by the Liberal Democrat party is to consider licensing as an administrative function that ought to be devolved to local councillors. I can go along with that logic, but I would like to state one or two personal experiences as I represent a constituency that has an above average number of hotels, pubs and restaurants and a large nightclub capacity. Licensing issues are important there and regularly feature in the local media and in general discourse.

Roger Gale: Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I should have said before I called him that the group of amendments is so wide-ranging that I shall allow this to be treated as a stand part debate. If hon. Members wish to intervene on the group of amendments, they would be wise to do so.

Adrian Sanders: Thank you, Mr. Gale.
 That being the case, one has to look at how the existing licensing system operates, where it is deficient, and perhaps what reforms would be needed. The general feeling among licensees in my constituency is, ''If it ain't bust, don't fix it''. However, there is recognition that the new system could, in time, result in savings, particularly for licensed premises. I cannot predict whether the new system will be better, but the main complaint with the existing system is not so much the conclusions that magistrates come to in the local community; it is that their decisions, which might be favoured by the local community, are sometimes overturned by a higher court with no connection to the local area. 
 I do not know whether the new system will change that; probably not. Local people, or those who are more accountable to the community, will be taking decisions but they could still be appealed against at a higher level. We will not know the answer to that until the new system is up and running. I cannot speak for other areas of the country, where I know there have been some complaints about local magistrates' decisions. Other hon. Members may be more familiar with such complaints. I can only speak from experience. 
 On the listing of the licensing authorities, why are unitary authorities not listed separately? I am sure that the answer is simple, that they are covered by one of the other categories and that it is not a drafting 
 mistake. A possible advantage of the new system is that a clear list will be set out of the functions and objectives that must be considered in licensing—prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, quality of life and the protection of children from harm. However, could not that set of objectives be put before magistrates? Obviously, that would be done not by DCMS, but by the Home Office. Also, do not magistrates at present take into consideration some of those general ideas, if not the specifics as set out in the Bill? 
 I am keeping an open mind. My party favours the change and I am willing to go along with it, but the experience of my constituency—and perhaps that of other hon. Members, too—is that magistrates have done an excellent job in carrying out their licensing functions until now. It remains to be seen whether local councillors can do as good a job, if not better.

Kevan Jones: I wish to speak against the amendment. I support the transfer of responsibility for the licensing of premises to local authorities. Local authorities already administer public entertainment licences, and do so well in my experience. They also deal with issues such as taxi licences, door registration schemes—in certain parts of the country—and planning applications. They have a wealth of experience of dealing with that type of enforcement.
 I mean no disrespect to hard-working magistrates, some of whom do a sterling job. They give up their time unselfishly. However, in my experience, they are not in tune with what is going on locally. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said that they are in touch on issues such as licensing. However, I know that in Newcastle a number of the licensing magistrates did not even live in the city and had no connection with the area. 
 Councillors administering public entertainment licences get to know the type of issues that are faced locally: the type of operators to be dealt with and the public order problems that are faced. The main reason why I support transferring the responsibility is that the new system will be clear and transparent and local people will know who is taking the decisions on licensing. 
 Again, in my experience as a local councillor, when people wanted to object to a public licence at a magistrates court, they found it very difficult to find out how to do it and, when they did, they found a magistrates court very intimidating—not only the legal process, but the fact that applicants' solicitors often threatened local residents with costs and so forth. That deterred local people from expressing their views in front of licensing magistrates. Reference was made earlier to the flexibility of magistrates. I am sorry but that is not my experience. They are very rigid in the way in which they implement the law, and often give undue weight to the views of the local police, for example, as opposed to the concerns of local residents. 
 There is much to be gained from transferring licensing responsibility to local authorities. It will also make applying for a local licence simpler. I disagree with the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, who said that it would be more 
 expensive. It will be cheaper. At the moment a local publican who wants, for example, a liquor licence and a public entertainment licence has two hoops to go through. The publican has to apply, first, to a magistrates court and, secondly, to a local authority for a public entertainment licence. Such licences vary widely throughout the country. I agree that some local authorities are using public entertainment licences as a stealth tax—a way of generating income, which they do not put back into enforcement. The standardisation of fees will make the system transparent and fair for people who apply. 
 There are costs involved for people who apply—the legal cost and the cost of re-applying for a public entertainment licence, which involves going before magistrates every year. They will not have to do that under the proposed system.

Malcolm Moss: The hon. Gentleman spoke in favour of a standardised fee. Can he not see that in a place such as Westminster, which has huge numbers of entertainment outlets and a massive policing and regulatory function, the costs would be higher than in my rural constituency of North-East Cambridgeshire, or even in the constituency of the hon. Member for Waveney?

Kevan Jones: I appreciate that, and that is why the fees will need to reflect the type of enforcement that there will be. However, at the moment, we have a system whereby a local authority can set a fee for a public entertainment licence which bears no resemblance whatsoever to its enforcement in practice. It is important that, if publicans and other people apply for a public entertainment licence, they are not treated unfairly compared to a neighbouring authority with similar establishments, and that the money is going into enforcement. That is what local people would like to see.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman spoke of the opportunity of applying for a premises licence and a public entertainment licence at the same time on one form. We understand that the premises licence will last indefinitely. How can an authority that is undertaking that type of licensing possibly assess what will happen in 30 or 40 years? Forty years ago very few people had motor cars. Now, many people have them. How can one possibly consider the impact of such an application on local people?

Kevan Jones: Authorities cannot do that, and I do not believe that that is what the Bill is expecting them to do. At the moment one has to re-apply every year, which is burdensome for the licensees. It serves no useful purpose. If a public house, restaurant or a nightclub is run professionally and is well maintained with no disorder, why do those involved have to pay a fee each year? The provision will allow well-run establishments to carry on their businesses and not become bogged down in unnecessary bureaucracy?
 The hon. Gentleman referred to the problems that will occur in certain establishments over time. The authorities will be able to step in. At present, a local authority can do that in respect of public 
 entertainment licences if there are public order problems. Unfortunately, however, the present law hinders the actions that the police and councils can take to control disorder, which can result, for example, from a change of management in a nightclub, as I know from experience. 
 We need to give local authorities some respect. At present, local councillors make many difficult decisions. They will be able to operate the system in a professionally and fairly. If local authorities are found not to be doing that, there will be recourse to local magistrates, whereby licences will not be granted, for example, although I should have preferred such matters to be left with the High Court. Amendment No. 59 should be rejected.

Mark Field: I endorse the approach taken by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and I accept the comments of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). There is a view that, if something is not broken, why fix it? However, as the hon. Gentleman said, there are different regimes throughout the country. I am sure that the Torbay, Torquay and Brixham area is small and defined, as are many local authority areas in London. Under the current system, magistrates and justices work well. They are understanding of the vicinity, often have been on the Bench for some time and deal with a significant number of such cases. They do not come out of the blue.
 We are worried that the Government take an over-prescriptive approach on several occasions. The real worry is about local decision making, because the licensing authorities will have a minor power compared with the centralised approach that has already been advanced by the Minister. I have not come here to bury or to praise Westminster City council, but the hon. Member for North Durham has tempted me to say a few words on it. The system will not be used along the lines of a stealth tax. It is instructive to compare it with the current planning regime, which is administered by a local authority. The proposal is that licensing authorities will act in parallel with planning authorities. 
 There is an under-resourcing problem in Westminster, and that applies to other London boroughs of all political parties such as Camden and Lambeth, which is on the other side of the river. Fixed fees for planning mean that the market has to decide—

Kevan Jones: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is not a member of Westminster City council, but is the money raised from current public entertainment licences ring-fenced for enforcement in Westminster?

Mark Field: I am not sure about that. Anyone on the streets of Soho or Covent Garden in the early hours of a Saturday or Sunday morning will realise the enormous expense and enforcement that is in the hands of Westminster City council and local authorities such as Camden next door. Such sums dwarf the modest fees that are raised by planning and general entertainment licences. It is perhaps easy for the hon. Gentleman to bandy around figures such as £20,000 for the large-scale operations in Soho, which deal with several thousand covers nightly. Given the
 turnover of such organisations, £20,000 is relatively small fry.
 I turn to planning. A number of the largest property companies with dealings in Westminster have made representations over the years for the cap on fees to be lifted. They realise that that cap means they get a less speedy and perhaps a less efficient service than they would receive otherwise. 
 I accept that there must be a balance. No one—certainly no one on this side of the Room—wants an increase in the number of stealth taxes. However, with a relatively low, nationally set fixed-fee basis, we run the risk that organisations in the alcohol and entertainment industry will become rapidly disillusioned with the system, not least because it will become log-jammed, especially in stress areas, such as parts of central London. 
 I appreciate that it is unlikely that we will win, looking at the numbers in the Committee. However, we should seriously consider the licensing justices and, in so far as we must have licensing authorities, we must ensure that the system is not overly centralised and that those involved have an understanding of local interests in the broader sense, including long-standing business interests and those of residents and residents' associations.

John Grogan: When this matter was considered in the other place, a large majority were against similar amendments for a number of reasons. This debate has been going on for years and the Government have reflected some of the concerns to which hon. Members have referred, such as those of the industry. For example, the White Paper does not mention appeals on the merits of a licensing decision; those were to be made only to the magistrates on points of law. Whether there could be appeals to the magistrates courts on the merits of all licensing cases is now being considered.
 One of the aims of the Bill is to streamline the licensing systems and if that is being done, a choice must be made between councils and magistrates. The implication of the amendment is that many powers held by democratically elected councils would be taken away. There is, at the moment, a dual lock on late licences: people must obtain a public entertainment licence from the council and they must get an extension to their liquor licence from the magistrates. It is absurd to think that most citizens would find it acceptable for councils to be taken completely out of managing the night-time economy of late-night openings and so on. 
 Consider Westminster, for example, where the civic sense of the hon. Gentleman's constituents has been an example to us all; they have made many representations to him and to all Committee members. Without doubt, all the residents' associations seem to favour the move to councils, which is probably because they feel that it would be easier to make representations to those bodies than it was in the past to magistrates. 
 No other country—I think—has a judicial approach to liquor and entertainment licensing. It is usually done through some system of local authority control—it is done that way in Scotland. As the chair of the all-party beer group's liquor licensing reform panel, I visited Denmark in search of inspiration. We returned with what we referred to as the ''Danish model''. I hasten to explain that the Danish model was a hybrid system of magistrates and councils, rather like our police authorities. While I have, and always will have, great affection for the Danish model—it will always have a place in my heart—the bureaucracy of setting up that system might be more trouble than it is worth. 
 I agree with a couple of the points made by Opposition Members. The transition is important; we must get it right. Arguably, it should last longer than 12 months. It is also important that licensing has increased status among local authorities. I think that magistrates have become better at licensing in the past four or five years. They have produced a good practice guide. There were many anomalies, and many complaints were made about the huge books on licensing policy. Birmingham magistrates, particularly, were infamous in that regard. 
 Local authorities are warming to the task. The Local Government Association is keen on the transfer and keen for its members to give licensing proper status. When I worked on a council, licensing had a similar status to cemeteries. The two functions were put next to each other. It is important that that sort of practice is ended. Licensing will be a key function for many local authorities. On the whole, I think that the change is sensible. In the end, we must choose between magistrates and councils, and I think that we must choose councils.

Graham Stringer: I support the Government and oppose the amendment for some of the reasons that have already been given. There is no perfect system. Local authorities fail and get decisions wrong, just as magistrates do. I served on a local authority for 19 years and could probably spend the rest of this sitting and the next telling stories of eccentric, bigoted and prejudiced decisions made by licensing committees. I am sure that such decisions were replicated elsewhere, too.
 I could also tell stories about times when the licensing magistrates in my city got decisions badly wrong. They created a vicious circle by deciding that there should be a limit on the number of licences in the centre of Manchester, as the police had objected and said that the city was full. The magistrates did not give any more liquor licences out and that created a private market in which licences changed hands for £20,000 each. It was a corrupt system, caused by the magistrates not really understanding what was happening in the centre of Manchester. It took some time to change that situation, unfortunately. It has changed now; there are two and a half times as many licences in Manchester as there were before, and there has been very little detrimental effect and great benefit to the economy. 
 Both magistrates and local authorities can get things wrong, but the balance of the arguments is in 
 favour of dealing with licences in one place, so that people can respond to the needs of the local community. It is much more likely that those elected by the local community will get decisions right. They might sometimes get them wrong and make strange decisions, but hopefully the national guidance will help them. Those on local authorities are, in many cases, more likely to be responsive than magistrates, particularly if they have just been through an election. 
 The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire argued that magistrates had greater longevity and local knowledge. That means that they might well get out of touch. Certainly, in big cities, many magistrates come from outside the city boundaries, although I accept that that might not be the case in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney. If we consider the composition of members of the bench in terms of ethnicity, gender, and postal codes, we will find that people on local authorities are much more representative and are more 
 likely to be responsive, so the hon. Gentleman's argument does not stand up. 
 The regulatory impact assessment shows a saving of £1.98 billion over 10 years. I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that we cannot take every figure in the assessment as gospel, but generally the figures show a direction towards savings. In my previous existence in the Cabinet Office, I used to have to read regulatory impact assessments and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the one before us is better than most. It indicates savings, even if one could not defend it to the last odd £50 million or £100 million over ten years. I therefore hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.

Andrew Turner: I wish to refer to the inclusions and exclusions in subsection (1)—
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till Tuesday 8 April at five minutes to Nine o'clock.